ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Rasputitsa, yes, but the process could be more transparent in TOAW and more easily controlled. I also think the engine tends to exaggerate the amount of time it takes to undertake certain activities.
It's stickier than I like. Maybe it needs more granularity, too. Consider doubling the number of possible subimpulses to create the possibility of greater differentiation between types of combats.
I am not saying TOAW is the way to go, the industry should be able to move on beyond that, but supporting the principle of a more realistic representation of movement and combat, with a reasonable helping of unpredictability. Even WIR had the possibility of movement and combat not taking place as plotted, if the OP calculation was wrong. Even had the option to have some friendly HQ operating under AI, with set objectives, OK primitive and unreliable, but it added some unpredictability, instead of hundreds of units moving directly to your command, which never happened in reality.
Some of the earlier games had features that potentially added to the realism, even if the level of development did not deliver fully. The John Tiller games, with the ability to control through lower level commanders, more in keeping with the way a command system really works. Ideal for something as large as the Eastern Front, but gradually lost from GGs games. I know the endless discussion of, the AI is broken, not doing what I want, but that is what happens in war.
Controlling through subordinate AI operated HQ would be more realistic, replicate command and control capabilities of each side and reduce the workload in complex games. It could always be subject to options and preferences for those who want to micro-manage and choose a greater level of player control.
I knew WiTE was not going this way, long before it was issued, but bought it anyway, but having never gone beyond the scenarios it has limited appeal. I don't expect a change of course now.
)
